Search form

You are here

Maby I am the only one who likes roling up a character with a few low numbers as well, but I feel that helps me build a good visual image and a backstory and personality for the character if I don`t have anything else planned to begin with..The first character I roled up for dnd next had three high and three low numbers, it was fun to base a character on those stats.He was going to be a cleric with the thug bacground. His backstory was that he had been burned horribly while the church he was robbing caught on fire. In the flames he saw the face of his god and he turned from the life of crime and became devoted to the god.The three low numbers made so much sense because of his injuries and the high numbers were just right. The bonuses I got from class and the +2 from human was ok, but when he had +1 in everything else, he suddenly wasn`t the character I invisioned anymore.I love 4e, but one of the things I didn`t like that much about it was that it was hard to escape the feeling of being a superhero at 1st level. Dnd next seems to have done a nice job in toning this down, but the stats and bonuses, at least as human still seemed a bit generous for my personal taste.Just my personal thoughts. Anyone else?

I think that people are too caught up on ability scores being increased and aren't properly comparing those little pluses to the things that aren't being gained in their place.

Humans get a +1 or more to Constitution... but dwarves might have a higher hit die all-together.Humans get a +1 or more to Strength... but most of the other races have an option that involves higher damage dice with iconic weapons.Humans get a +1 or more to Dexterity... dwarves might have a higher AC despite that, and halflings will probably be able to successfully hide more often anyways.

In a large number of cases, the +1 not only doesn't really match up to an equivalent feature that another race gets, but it doesn't even change the ability modifier of the score it got added to.

Despite appearing to make the character "super", it is really the least thrilling of the racial packages thus far.

ATTENTION: If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I get what you are saying, but I`m not talking about balance, I`m talking about how the character feels and how it is reflected in his or her ability scores. I agree that it balances out with the other races.The thing is that me and many others like being weak at first level, so that it actualy feels like you are getting stronger and more experienced as you are gaining levels. Developing your character and overcoming challanges despite his or her weaknesses feels good. Many folktale heroes and fantasy characters start out humble with more than one flaw, it is an archetype that is very compelling to a lot of players. A very basic and simple way to reflect flaws, weaknesses or streangths mechanicaly is to do it through the ability scores.

I don't mind the +1 to everything. I really don't like the +2 bonus to one stat though. I would also like the race to have a more flavorful ability, and/or the ability to trade out a +1 bonus to one of their stats for something else (that is more flavorful).

Maby I am the only one who likes roling up a character with a few low numbers as well, but I feel that helps me build a good visual image and a backstory and personality for the character if I don`t have anything else planned to begin with..The first character I roled up for dnd next had three high and three low numbers, it was fun to base a character on those stats.He was going to be a cleric with the thug bacground. His backstory was that he had been burned horribly while the church he was robbing caught on fire. In the flames he saw the face of his god and he turned from the life of crime and became devoted to the god.The three low numbers made so much sense because of his injuries and the high numbers were just right. The bonuses I got from class and the +2 from human was ok, but when he had +1 in everything else, he suddenly wasn`t the character I invisioned anymore.I love 4e, but one of the things I didn`t like that much about it was that it was hard to escape the feeling of being a superhero at 1st level. Dnd next seems to have done a nice job in toning this down, but the stats and bonuses, at least as human still seemed a bit generous for my personal taste.Just my personal thoughts. Anyone else?

I absolutely agree. First of all, creating a human is just boring compared to other characters. At least there you have meaningful choices to make. A simple addition to every stat adds no flavor to the character. Now, if you gave extra skills or feats to humans at first level, adding to their versatility, and maybe a +2 in one stat and two +1s, you still get to make some choices. On top of that, you can give different abilities to urban dwellers, nomads, and other human cultures. That would be just like the variants available to other classes. Despite the advantages, I hate creating human characters.

I also agree that first level characters are too high powered at this point. The cleric spell lance of faith is a prime example. It should not be a cantrip. It should be a first level spell at least. Doing a 2D6 ranged attack at will at first level is just broken. Why even pull out your mace when you can do that every round. Choices stop being meaningful when one choice is obviously superior to all other choices.

Having a 16, 17 or even 18 in something doesn`t feel special anymore either, but that`s not as big of a deal to me than it eing so damn hard to be crap at something:p Well, at least it`s not as bad as magic items not feeling special at all anymore, but I know they are fixing that

Can't say I feel the same way. Humans are supposed to be a kind of jack-of-all-trades race. So they get a bit of bonus in everything. And you're really limiting yourself if you think a +1 in a stat will dramatically change how your character plays, roleplaying wise. Roleplay it how you want to. Playing a human actually fit in perfectly for me, because I needed a character that was a bit good in everything. So my 2 highest stats were 16. It was pretty balanced.

Can't say I feel the same way. Humans are supposed to be a kind of jack-of-all-trades race. So they get a bit of bonus in everything. And you're really limiting yourself if you think a +1 in a stat will dramatically change how your character plays, roleplaying wise. Roleplay it how you want to. Playing a human actually fit in perfectly for me, because I needed a character that was a bit good in everything. So my 2 highest stats were 16. It was pretty balanced.

Sure I can roleplay it, but I would want more to hang a character on. Creating a halfling or elf is like eating a taco or sweet-and-sour pork. Creating a human is like having to eat nothing but boiled potatoes, without salt, pepper, or any other seasoning.

Sure I can roleplay it, but I would want more to hang a character on. Creating a halfling or elf is like eating a taco or sweet-and-sour pork. Creating a human is like having to eat nothing but boiled potatoes, without salt, pepper, or any other seasoning.

That's kind of the point though. Humans are supposed to be a more or less class- and culture- agnostic racial choice. You pick them if already have your own sauce you want to put on the dish and don't want the flavor of sweet-and-sour pork drowning it out.

Sure I can roleplay it, but I would want more to hang a character on. Creating a halfling or elf is like eating a taco or sweet-and-sour pork. Creating a human is like having to eat nothing but boiled potatoes, without salt, pepper, or any other seasoning.

That's kind of the point though. Humans are supposed to be a more or less class- and culture- agnostic racial choice. You pick them if already have your own sauce you want to put on the dish and don't want the flavor of sweet-and-sour pork drowning it out.

I would like to see something more like the 3.x approach. A couple of meaningful ability bonuses, combined with possibly feat and skill bonuses. The "bonuses across the board" approach just leaves me utterly unimpressed. Besides, humanity should also have the largest range of attributes, thus allowing for low scores as well.

I agree, the human bonuses are flavorless in my opinion. There are so many kinds and they can create something that gives bonuses/feats depending on the type of human to create flavor. I mean with halflings as a race of nomads they were able to come up with something for them...

I don't mind the +1 to everything. I really don't like the +2 bonus to one stat though. I would also like the race to have a more flavorful ability, and/or the ability to trade out a +1 bonus to one of their stats for something else (that is more flavorful).

I could live with that: +1 all, no +2. The option to keep one +1 and swap out the others seems fine too.

I guess imagination is dead. Humans have always been the weak sauce in D&D and I like it that way.

I agree, that`s not my problem at all! My problem is that I just roled up three characters, and after the adjustments from all the bonuses, every single one of them fealt way too good! 17 and 18 doesn`t feal any special anymore(just like in 4e), that I can live with as 19 and 20 can be the new 17 and 18, what bothers me is that I don`t have a single score under 10! It`s no fun playing a damn character without any flaws, who is powerful from the get go. I want to be crap at something!! That is fun to play! Something to overcome, being a hero and overcoming dangers and challanges despite being dumb or weak. Perfect is dull, Mary Sue characters are bland and boring!

I know, I know!!! Before you start saying I can role up more characters untill I`m "weak enough" or that I can ask my dm to have a lower score or that ability scores don`t have to mean much when it comes to roleplaying and I can have other rp character flaws, I KNOW! I just don`t want this powergamer mentality to be the standard, that you have to have high scores to have fun!

Don`t get me wrong, I love the lates editions, especialy as a dm! But in the character department I have felt they have been a bit.... EXTREME!The most fun I ever had as a player was in ad&d 2nd ed where you started out weak and careful, then it meant something to level up, getting stronger and stronger. You didn`t start out as a superhero, you became a superhero, you became EXTREME! if you are a strong and tough hero to begin with, why have levels? Only for the mechanics?

For me it's never about power gaming. I was never good at the amazing min/max stuff of the past. However there is a huge difference in power gaming and simply feeling your char is balanced to the others.

For those of you that roll well. Great. Good for you. However in my case I rolled a Human and ended up with the worse stats after adding them. Now sure I can role play the based off his weak stats but what if I want to feel my char is a force that is equal to the others in our group? At this point the non-humans get all the extras plus they have better stats.

Another concern of mine from a balance point is that people always say +1 to con is equal to the dwarf getting a bigger die. Well no. it's not. because that dwarf will also have the max in con before long. Now how does a dwarf 20 con and a human 20 con balance??

It kind of bothers me that the average human is stronger than any other race that's not especially known for its strength. Humans are supposed to be the baseline against which the other races are compared, since... you know ... they're the only ones with whom we have real-life basis.

So, we all know what a human is. Dwarves can be defined as being less strong, less personable, less numble, and less intelligent than that. Elves can be defined as being less strong, less tough, less perceptive, and less personable than humans.

For me it's never about power gaming. I was never good at the amazing min/max stuff of the past. However there is a huge difference in power gaming and simply feeling your char is balanced to the others.

For those of you that roll well. Great. Good for you. However in my case I rolled a Human and ended up with the worse stats after adding them. Now sure I can role play the based off his weak stats but what if I want to feel my char is a force that is equal to the others in our group? At this point the non-humans get all the extras plus they have better stats.

Another concern of mine from a balance point is that people always say +1 to con is equal to the dwarf getting a bigger die. Well no. it's not. because that dwarf will also have the max in con before long. Now how does a dwarf 20 con and a human 20 con balance??

well for one thing, ABILITY wise and not just attribute, the dwarf that gets a con bonus ALSO has a bigger die each level

It kind of bothers me that the average human is stronger than any other race that's not especially known for its strength. Humans are supposed to be the baseline against which the other races are compared, since... you know ... they're the only ones with whom we have real-life basis.

So, we all know what a human is. Dwarves can be defined as being less strong, less personable, less numble, and less intelligent than that. Elves can be defined as being less strong, less tough, less perceptive, and less personable than humans.

It kind of makes everyone seem really lame.

i would be fine with lower the bonuses of humans, and give back racial penalties. instead of showing elves being less strong than humans by not having a bonus, it is shown by elves having a penalty to strength

It kind of bothers me that the average human is stronger than any other race that's not especially known for its strength. Humans are supposed to be the baseline against which the other races are compared, since... you know ... they're the only ones with whom we have real-life basis.

So, we all know what a human is. Dwarves can be defined as being less strong, less personable, less numble, and less intelligent than that. Elves can be defined as being less strong, less tough, less perceptive, and less personable than humans.

It kind of makes everyone seem really lame.

+1 to that. I totally agree.

I really dislike Human Ability Score adjustments.

1) Humans may not be as tough as the dwarves or as graceful as an elf, but in their short life spans they are persistent and resourceful and can excel at anything. That was a part of the human experience I really liked seeing portrayed in D&D (and on a sidenote, I believe it had some educational value as well).What the current system gives out IMHO, is that humans kick ass because they are a better 'breed' than every other race with higher ability scores in everything. This is not a very compelling idea and falls well outside standard fantasy tropes (supposedly represented in the core).

2) An average human would have every ability score at 10. With the boatload of pluses they get now, either all other races have Ability Scores at 9 with an occasional 10 or the average human should have all scores at 11 and one at 12. Of course it doesn't have to be this way, (the pluses could only apply to adventurers etc.) but the system loses some of its consistency which is a bit annoying.

3) With bounded accuracy every modifer a character gets may have a significant impact on her efficiency. Handing out ability score bonuses on such an early stage of the game may make low level encounters / DCs too easy. For Bounded Accuracy to work Ability Score Inflation is something that needs to be dealt with, and avid human bonuses don't help.

I could accept a single penalty to the other races to offset lower human abilities. I would just like to see human versatility and variety handled with a combination of skill bonuses, bonus feats, and/or ability adjustments. There has got to be a more creative way to make humans unique.

There is something to be said about having some flaws on a character. I had a great time playing an Orc Warden named Jym in 4e. I made his Int score 8, but roleplayed it more like a 6 (he occasionally forgot his name and had to be reminded - Jym was not his original name). He was hilarious, and though he was dumb as rocks, he was a very sweet and gentle soul (he enjoyed flowers and would stick them in his hide armor). That is, until the bad guys would threaten his friends, of which he had very few. Then he would enter a fierce, yet protective, rage.

Having higher ability scores doesn't preclude you from roleplaying as having lower ability scores (i.e. flaws). Though Jym had an 8 Int due to character building restrictions, I played him as what I view as a 6 Int, more or less. A higher ability score also means that you can be really good in some facets of that ability and not in others.

For instance, you could be good at finding clues (normally an Int-Search check), but you have a horrible memory (which you would have to roleplay). Having a high Charisma could just mean you're very good looking with a strong personality (roleplaying), but terrible at dealing with most people (an arrogant noble). It's all about how you want to build your character and roleplay their personality. In the end, ability scores do not have to reflect the entirety of your character's strengths and flaws. As the campaign progresses, the character could become better at thest things without ever increasing an ability score because they have learned how to adapt to their shortcomings. Maybe you compensate for the bad memory by taking lots of notes, or that arrogant noble could have been humbled by all he had seen. That's how I tend to roleplay anyway.

Still, more on topic, I agree with the general sentiment that the human bonuses are somewhat dull. In my opinion, I like sticking with the (seemingly tried and true) +1 bonus to an ability score, get an extra trained skill at level 1, and get an extra feat at level 1. This would reflect the human's adaptability (which seems to be their "focus" in recent editions), but does not exceed any other race's capabilities. You could maybe even offer another bonus or trait if those options are found lacking compared to the other races.

Let's put aside for a moment the case of being or not overpowerd, and analyze that from another angle...

To me this +1 to everything bonus just makes no sense.

If you take a Human as the standard for races (which makes sense since we players are all humans), as the point of reference, then just make then flat.No pluses, no minuses.

The points you distribute initially or the dice you roll for Ability Scores are (or should be) already in the human standard, without need for more adjustments.Then you give + or - to the other races if they're stronger or weaker than humans in a certain aspect.

Pathfinder did something similar (can I mention that game here? I'm not sure :P).They gave +2 to Humans in a chosen Ability, then gave even more bonuses to other races to compensate for they racial differences.

Why, I wonder?That just causes inflation in the numbers.Humans are the standard for comparison, so leave them flat.

3ed solution of giving humans an extra feat and skills to me was brilliant to add some "charm" to the race without breaking it as the point of reference for all others.That is something which I feel the 5ed should stick to.

I get the impression that some new rules, such as this one, are added due to an impulse to make everything look "new", every rule at least a bit different, since it's a new edition being made.

Which I think is only natural as a primary impulse... but some of the old stuff was just plain good!And they need not necessarily change.

Let's put aside for a moment the case of being or not overpowerd, and analyze that from another angle...

To me this +1 to everything bonus just makes no sense.

If you take a Human as the standard for races (which makes sense since we players are all humans), as the point of reference, then just make then flat.No pluses, no minuses.

The points you distribute initially or the dice you roll for Ability Scores are (or should be) already in the human standard, without need for more adjustments.Then you give + or - to the other races if they're stronger or weaker than humans in a certain aspect.

Pathfinder did something similar (can I mention that game here? I'm not sure :P).They gave +2 to Humans in a chosen Ability, then gave even more bonuses to other races to compensate for they racial differences.

Why, I wonder?That just causes inflation in the numbers.Humans are the standard for comparison, so leave them flat.

3ed solution of giving humans an extra feat and skills to me was brilliant to add some "charm" to the race without breaking it as the point of reference for all others.That is something which I feel the 5ed should stick to.

I get the impression that some new rules, such as this one, are added due to an impulse to make everything look "new", every rule at least a bit different, since it's a new edition being made.

Which I think is only natural as a primary impulse... but some of the old stuff was just plain good!And they need not necessarily change.

I agree to some extent. Humans do not need some huge bonus regardless if they can fit into anywhere. Personally I think humans just need some definition and some idea of what they should be instead of this generic thing. When you choose human it kind of feels like its uncreative because they are designed in the most uncreative way. They need some fluff and traits that can define them similar to what the other races have. For a halfling you choose lightfoot or stout. For a human you should be able to make a similar choice such as climate, etc. Generally people from cold places have more cold resistance and people from sunny places enjoy the sun. If you give bonuses or traits based on those type of things then what they gain makes more sense. Random stat bonuses makes no sense. You are just putting numbers on your sheet at that point...

Yeah I'm not a fan of the +2 to one stat that humans get. I'd rather they get +1 to all stats and something else, perhaps skill related (such as going up 1 dice size for skill checks) to give them a little bit of flavour, and because that +2 practically guarentees an 18 at first level.

Yeah I'm not a fan of the +2 to one stat that humans get. I'd rather they get +1 to all stats and something else, perhaps skill related (such as going up 1 dice size for skill checks) to give them a little bit of flavour, and because that +2 practically guarentees an 18 at first level.

A +2 is perfectly fine but not when a +1 follows for everything because at that point you just have too many stats being raised from the start. However, I think that there should be several choices based on climate, etc. Take Avatar: The Last Airbender's different cultures. The Earth people were generally stronger because they worked with stone and rock, the Waterbenders could endure harsh conditions, The Fire Nation were really smart and the Airbenders were very agile. However, those need to be converted to climate instead of elements though.

Well, Pathfinder presumably did what it did because +2 to one, -2 to one is better than +0, since you can min-max. (It would probably be better if all stats were equally useful to everyone, or if you weren't allowed to coordinate your choices for some reason.) +2 to one vs. +2 to two, -2 to one is good for balance purposes, and I don't personally mind a world in which a really tough human is as tough as a dwarf. (In fact, it makes for good cinema, like a drinking contest.)

But all humans, on average, being as tough as dwarves and as nimble as halflings and as strong as half-orcs, etc., with the exceptional ones being even more so? No.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

The human +1 to all ability scores bonus is not only overpowered, it's boring. Why can't they just give humans +1 to any one score, a bonus skill and a bonus feat?

Because skills and feats have to be optional if the stated design goal of D&D Next being able to emulate any edition's style of play is going to have any chance of success - OD&D and AD&D prior to Unearthed Arcana had no general skill system, and nothing that works like feats do existed prior to the Player's Option series of books for AD&D 2nd edition.

ATTENTION: If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

If the human stat bonuses are insignificant (and I do not believe they are), why not lose them in favor of something useful? If they do matter, as I believe, then they are broken.

Humans walk out the front door better than everyone. They are stronger than half-orcs, tougher than dwarves, more nimble than halflings, and smarter than high elves. The human fighter will be as smart as the high elf fighter, on average, but the human wizard will be more intelligent.

Now some people argue this only applies to adventurers. Well, players only play adventurers. No one rolls up an ordinary baker who never even gets robbed. There aren't even rules for rolling up such a thing. This is breaking the flavor of the game at its most basic level, and I strongly believe it is a bad choice.

A bunch of new players are sitting down to create characters. Suzie rolls up a graceful elven mage, only to find she is outshone by the human fighter AND the human cleric. Now she can see in low light, but she still has to cast light for her friends (assuming the DM rigorously enforces light). She can't see in the depths of a dungeon any better than the rest of her party. However, every single time she rolls something against dexterity, she gets a not so subtle reminder that her her graceful elf is less than her human friends.

These stats are the firstt thing anyone looks at when building or reviewing a character. They tell a story all their own. A fighter with emphasis on dexterity and charisma paints a very differen picture than one who is all strength and constitution. When you look at a character, the class and stats do make up a part of the story.

The person above with the low int orc warden, for example, used the high and low stats to build a character, not just a min-max fighting machine.

If humans are the baseline, make them flat. Add bonuses and penalties to other races for balance. For those who argue that penalties are poor game design, first I disagree and second, baseline means middle, not bottom. Humans need to be better than non-humans in some areas (just not all).

If humans are not the baseline, then build them like any other race. Give them a couple of choices for +1 and 4-5 abilities where they shine, just liek everyone else.

My biggest problem is that high stats don`t feel high anymore, nothing special with having an 18 and nothing under 10. I hoped that would change now that you role for your stats again.

I kind of agree with this... but mostly because I feel like the current rules for ability scores (rolling + modifiers) are only doing one thing not quite optimally - 4d6 discard lowest is every so slightly too high of a rolling method.

With 3d6 though, high scores take a little drop in frequency and 18s become decently rare even with the current Human ability modifiers.

ATTENTION: If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

With 3d6 though, high scores take a little drop in frequency and 18s become decently rare even with the current Human ability modifiers.

Problem is 3d6 also rather frequently people end up with a bunch of 5s, 6s and 7s in their sheet.A few low numbers is ok, even nice to roleplay sometimes, but too many very low numbers and your character starts to become somewhat unplayable.

You can let the players roll 3d6x6, three or four times and let them pick the best row, I did that when I ran 2e campaigns. Or 2e actually have rules on letting characters roll again if the numbers are just too low or too high.

Problem is 3d6 also rather frequently people end up with a bunch of 5s, 6s and 7s in their sheet.A few low numbers is ok, even nice to roleplay sometimes, but too many very low numbers and your character starts to become somewhat unplayable.

HackMaster has a beautiful rule called the shopkeeper rule - when you are rolling stats for a character, if you don't get one score of at least 13 or get two scores of 5 or lower you assign a name to those scores and give them to your GM to use as a shopkeeper or other NPC and you roll again for your character.

A rule like that, in my opinion, is a solid fix for making sure that characters aren't "unplayable" because of their scores that doesn't also ramp up the actual scores coming into play significantly like 4d6 drop lowest or a roll three sets and choose the best process does.

ATTENTION: If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I like how Humans are simple and straightforward yet very good and adaptable.

Me too, but having 18 in something should feel rare and special, 18 almost dosen`t feel high anymore with how common it is. I guess this isn`t exclusive to humans, but all the stat bonuses bothers me! It used to be fun to have one or two low stats under 10, and 14 or 15 and higher used to feel like really high stats and 18 was just sick! Now it`s unusual for a character not to have an 18 in something.